Fly It to the Ground

[Kyle Boatright]

A Lancair was involved in a fatal accident near Dalton, GA yesterday. It
crashed in the median of a divided 4 lane highway. The airplane had engine
problems and had time to radio distress calls. Depending on the news source,
it appears that there might have been as much as 10 to 20 minutes between
the first distress call and the crash. One story indicated that the
aircraft crashed almost 10 minutes after emergency crews had been notified
of a plane in distress.

Apparently the pilot was trying to reach the Dalton airport, which was about
3 miles from the crash scene. The airplane didn't make the airport and the
pilot was almost certainly trying to land on the road. Having seen pictures
of the aftermath, it appears that the aircraft was not under control when it
hit the ground. Perhaps the pilot stalled trying to avoid landing in traffic
(this is a busy road), clipped a utility wire, or lost control trying to
avoid wires.

Plane crashes in north Georgia, kills 1 - Examiner.com

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/breaking/entries/2006/11/06/109692.html
(may require registration)

Anyway, the point that this accident brings home is that unless you have the
opportunity to land on a road that is free of vehicular traffic and which
you know to be free of utility wires, land the airplane in a field if you
have the chance. Even more important is that you need to fly the airplane
all the way to the ground and touch down as slowly as possible. Losing
control at 50' almost guarantees a bad outcome.

I fly over the crash area all the time and can tell you that there is a fair
amount of open land nearby. That pasture (or whatever) may not look as
airplane friendly as a paved road, but for a deadstick pilot a road is like
a sucker hole for a VFR pilot. It can be a killer when something that looked
good from afar goes to you-know-what when you get a look at it up close and
personal.

KB

[Kyle Boatright]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>A Lancair was involved in a fatal accident near Dalton, GA yesterday. It
>crashed in the median of a divided 4 lane highway. The airplane had engine
>problems and had time to radio distress calls. Depending on the news
>source, it appears that there might have been as much as 10 to 20 minutes
>between the first distress call and the crash. One story indicated that
>the aircraft crashed almost 10 minutes after emergency crews had been
>notified of a plane in distress.
>
> Apparently the pilot was trying to reach the Dalton airport, which was
> about 3 miles from the crash scene. The airplane didn't make the airport
> and the pilot was almost certainly trying to land on the road. Having
> seen pictures of the aftermath, it appears that the aircraft was not under
> control when it hit the ground. Perhaps the pilot stalled trying to avoid
> landing in traffic (this is a busy road), clipped a utility wire, or lost
> control trying to avoid wires.
>
> Plane crashes in north Georgia, kills 1 - Examiner.com

Fixed Link:
http://www.examiner.com/a-382498~Plane_crashes_in_north_Georgia__kills_1.htm l

>
> http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/breaking/entries/2006/11/06/109692.html
> (may require registration)
>
> Anyway, the point that this accident brings home is that unless you have
> the opportunity to land on a road that is free of vehicular traffic and
> which you know to be free of utility wires, land the airplane in a field
> if you have the chance. Even more important is that you need to fly the
> airplane all the way to the ground and touch down as slowly as possible.
> Losing control at 50' almost guarantees a bad outcome.
>
> I fly over the crash area all the time and can tell you that there is a
> fair amount of open land nearby. That pasture (or whatever) may not look
> as airplane friendly as a paved road, but for a deadstick pilot a road is
> like a sucker hole for a VFR pilot. It can be a killer when something that
> looked good from afar goes to you-know-what when you get a look at it up
> close and personal.
>
> KB
>
>
>
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
> I fly over the crash area all the time and can tell you that there is a
fair
> amount of open land nearby. That pasture (or whatever) may not look as
> airplane friendly as a paved road, but for a deadstick pilot a road is
like
> a sucker hole for a VFR pilot.

Sucker holes can work. It depends on the pilot's familiarity with the area.
The only part of your blanket statement I can agree with is the part about
flying it all the way down. I disagree that fields are better than roads
when used as a blanket statement. Every crash scene is different.

D.

[EridanMan]

I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
to come to a full stop.

Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.

Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.

[[email protected]]

EridanMan wrote:
> I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
> a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
> to come to a full stop.
>
> Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.
>
> Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
> landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
> people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.

I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

wrote:
> EridanMan wrote:

>
> I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
> happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
> company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.

That's only true for aircraft that have hull insurance. But your point
is valid that one should not try to save the aircraft.

[Stubby]

Kinetic energy and thus landing distance, is proportional to the square
of the speed. (Students need to be told this when learning to land.)

EridanMan wrote:
> I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
> a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
> to come to a full stop.
>
> Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.
>
> Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
> landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
> people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.
>

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
> a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
> to come to a full stop.

About 9 feet, 4 inches.

> Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.

Nope. More like 18 feet, 4 inches.

The distance varies as the square of the touchdown velocity.

And human beings can survive up to at least 46 Gs if they are properly
supported and braced for impact, with some temporary sequelae. Nine
gravities of acceleration is trivial to survive, but some people will
black out if the acceleration is sustained (almost invariably with no
aftereffects). Aerobatic aircraft can generally withstand more than 9
Gs, and top aerobatic flyers can fly at such accelerations as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Darkwing]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kinetic energy and thus landing distance, is proportional to the square of
> the speed. (Students need to be told this when learning to land.)
>


You want to show us that in an equation?

--------------------------------------------
DW

[EridanMan]

FWIW, I found the actual numbers here, they were actually in the FAA
"airplane fliers handbook"

For a Constant, 9G deceleration (as I mentioned, easily survivable)-

at 50MPH, 9.4 feet
at 75MPH, 18.8 feet
at 100MPH, 37.6 feet

What to take away from this, is you will probably survive a full-stall
landing on just about any surface in your typical light single GA
aircraft... Hell, even in thick bushes or small trees... The key is to
strike A- as slow and B- as shallow as possible.

The risk comes almost invariably when a pilot passes up a "suitable"
landing zone (even the aformentioned tree canopy) for a "better" one
that is marginally outside of his energy-budget's reach... A full
stall 30 feet off the ground while trying to extend a glide will
almost always be fatal... the same full stall just 30 feet lower, even
in on a less than ideal surface, will almost always be survivable...

Something to remember.

[Jose[_1_]]

> For a Constant, 9G deceleration (as I mentioned, easily survivable)-
>
> at 50MPH, 9.4 feet
> at 75MPH, 18.8 feet
> at 100MPH, 37.6 feet
>
> What to take away from this, is you will probably survive a full-stall
> landing on just about any surface in your typical light single GA
> aircraft...

In what direction? That is very important. (where did you find the
chart? I have the same book and can't easily find it).

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[EridanMan]

Thanks MX, you and I found the same numbers at the same time;)

> The distance varies as the square of the touchdown velocity.
>
> And human beings can survive up to at least 46 Gs if they are properly
> supported and braced for impact, with some temporary sequelae. Nine
> gravities of acceleration is trivial to survive, but some people will
> black out if the acceleration is sustained (almost invariably with no
> aftereffects). Aerobatic aircraft can generally withstand more than 9
> Gs, and top aerobatic flyers can fly at such accelerations as well.

Bingo. I think a "9 G Average" deceleration is a pretty good bet in
general- you can actually survive substantially higher than that, but
factor in the chance of it being a 'smooth' deceleration as remote
(there will be points you stop more than others), and its a decent rule
of thumb.

just whatever you do, do not strike with vertical speed- The Ground
will stop you _MUCH_ faster vertically than even the thickest brush,
mud and obsticles will horizontally, with the exception of tree trunks
and brick walls (so yeah, don't land into a brick wall either;)) I.E,
DO NOT RISK STALL BY ATTEMPTING TO STRETCH A GLIDE, NO MATTER HOW
PERFECT YOUR TARGET TOUCHDOWN POINT IS!

I think that's really the core of my argument;)

[NW_Pilot]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> FWIW, I found the actual numbers here, they were actually in the FAA
> "airplane fliers handbook"
>
> For a Constant, 9G deceleration (as I mentioned, easily survivable)-
>
> at 50MPH, 9.4 feet
> at 75MPH, 18.8 feet
> at 100MPH, 37.6 feet
>
> What to take away from this, is you will probably survive a full-stall
> landing on just about any surface in your typical light single GA
> aircraft... Hell, even in thick bushes or small trees... The key is to
> strike A- as slow and B- as shallow as possible.
>
> The risk comes almost invariably when a pilot passes up a "suitable"
> landing zone (even the aformentioned tree canopy) for a "better" one
> that is marginally outside of his energy-budget's reach... A full
> stall 30 feet off the ground while trying to extend a glide will
> almost always be fatal... the same full stall just 30 feet lower, even
> in on a less than ideal surface, will almost always be survivable...
>
> Something to remember.
>


30 feet lower you would be on the ground!!

[EridanMan]

> In what direction? That is very important. (where did you find the
> chart? I have the same book and can't easily find it).

P 16-3

And the direction is the fundamental point - Strike with as little as
possible downward momentum.

Or, more precisely, when given the choice of expending your aircraft's
energy downward against the ground or horizontally against anything
else (other than a brick wall, tree trunk, or something as similarly
unforgiving as the ground), pick anything else... And whatever you do,
Do NOT put yourself in the position where you don't have a choice
(Stall).

As the topic says - fly her all the way to the crash site... if she's
still flying when she hits, the wings are still holding her off the
ground, and your deceleration will be against stuff on the ground, and
not the ground itself.

>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[EridanMan]

> 30 feet lower you would be on the ground!!

Umm... yeah, that's the point-

Better to strike the ground IN a full stall (lowest possible airspeed,
neutral vertical speed) rather than 30 feet BELOW a full stall
(Substantially faster airspeed with a 20-30 degree downward vertical
component). The first you will most likely survive (As long as you
don't strike a building pretty much) the second you most likely will
not. The beautiful runway 100 feet in front of you is nothing but a
Siren calling you to your death if you lack the energy to reach it...
When in ANY doubt, don't even try... ditch short.

[Jose[_1_]]

> P 16-3

Hmmm. In my edition that's right in the middle of seaplanes, and the
chart is a wind speed chart.

> And the direction is the fundamental point - Strike with as little as
> possible downward momentum.

Yep. Your spine can't take much of that. Mine can't either. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> You want to show us that in an equation?

e=s^2

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave[_1_]]

One of my instructors STRONGLY suggested that I "do not try to save
an aircraft that was trying to kill me"....

Dave



On 7 Nov 2006 19:34:39 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan" >
wrote:

wrote:
>> EridanMan wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
>> happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
>> company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.
>
>That's only true for aircraft that have hull insurance. But your point
>is valid that one should not try to save the aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave writes:

> One of my instructors STRONGLY suggested that I "do not try to save
> an aircraft that was trying to kill me"....

That's certainly the logical way to look at it, but I can understand
why people try to save the aircraft. It's a big investment, and
there's no _guarantee_ that by saving the aircraft you automatically
sacrifice yourself. Everyone hopes to save both.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
> In what direction? That is very important. (where did you find the
> chart? I have the same book and can't easily find it).

Why do you need a chart?

9G deceleration is 32 feet/s/s times 9, or almost 300 feet/s/s. 1 mph is
about 1.5 f/s. To lose 50 mph (roughly 75 f/s) at 9G would take 75/300 =
1/4 second. In 1/4 second, constant deceleration from 75 f/s, you'd travel
(75/2)/4 feet, or 9 feet.

Apply the same math to get the numbers at any speed you want, including 75
and 100 mph (using more accurate conversions this time):

75 mph (110 f/s): 110/288 = 0.382 seconds, distance is (110/2)*0.382 = 21
feet
100 mph (147 f/s): 147/288 = 0.510 seconds, distance is (147/2)*0.510 = 38
feet

(no, I don't know why the table has the wrong number for 75mph)

And yes, I'm sure this relates to deceleration horizontally. Hopefully, one
is not descending vertically at 50mph. :) That said, I'd think 9Gs would
be survivable vertically as well...after all, a few pilots sustain that in
normal flight without getting killed. Assuming a more modest descent rate
of say, 500 fpm (8 f/s), 9Gs requires almost an inch and a half over which
to decelerate. Presumably that much structure would collapse during such a
descent, providing the necessary deceleration.

Of course, you'd better check my math...from another thread, I seem to not
be having a good math day today. :)

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> 9G deceleration is 32 feet/s/s times 9, or almost 300 feet/s/s. 1 mph
> is about 1.5 f/s. To lose 50 mph (roughly 75 f/s) at 9G would take
> 75/300 = 1/4 second. In 1/4 second, constant deceleration from 75
> f/s, you'd travel (75/2)/4 feet, or 9 feet.

No need to compute the deceleration time (intermediate result) if one
applies a little algebra (or calculus):

S = V*V/(2*a)

S = Distance traveled.
V = Initial velocity.
a = Deceleration.

The mistakes people seem to make normally come from unit conversion (e.g.
mph to fps).

[Jose[_1_]]

> Why do you need a chart?

I don't. And even if I did, it was supplied (and I have the math to
test it). But the source of the chart (which is what I asked about)
could have other background information which would be of interest.

> That said, I'd think 9Gs would
> be survivable vertically as well...

Not as... er... "comfortably" as horizontally. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> Not as... er... "comfortably" as horizontally. :)

No, of course not. I'm just pointing out that 9Gs vertical isn't all that
bad either, as crashes go.

Off the top of my head, don't the current Part 23 regulations require seats
that can sustain over 20Gs?

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> No need to compute the deceleration time (intermediate result) if one
> applies a little algebra (or calculus):

Duh. Of course, that's the whole point of algebra. However, knowing the
"full" solution makes it easier to understand, at least for some people.
That's why I posted it.

Of course, I put "full" in quotes, because I *did* leave out the calculus
step (the formula for determining distance traveled during a period of
acceleration, positive or negative).

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

EridanMan wrote:
> FWIW, I found the actual numbers here, they were actually in the FAA
> "airplane fliers handbook"
>
> For a Constant, 9G deceleration (as I mentioned, easily survivable)-
>
> at 50MPH, 9.4 feet
> at 75MPH, 18.8 feet
> at 100MPH, 37.6 feet

The complication is that it isn't the average acceleration of the
structure that matters, it is the acceleration of various body parts
that matters. Upon first impact of the airplane, the body is
experiencing no deceleration at all. Once you move forward the seat
belt begins to tighten and then you being to gradually decelerate. If
you have shoulder harnesses, you hopefully don't hit any structure of
the airplane, but you will still experience peak deceleration well above
what the airplane structure is experiencing since you started
decelerating later, but you will stop at roughly the same time as the
airplance. So the shape of the acceleration vs. time curves are vastly
different for the airplane structure than for the body inside.

The really bad part is when you don't have a shoulder harness and your
head hits the instrument panel. You will now experience an impact force
MANY times greater than 9G.


Matt

[EridanMan]

> :)No, of course not. I'm just pointing out that 9Gs vertical isn't all that
> bad either, as crashes go.

But its a question of whats more likely to give way enough to allow you
a 9G deceleration, the hard ground, or a bunch of softer stuff along
the ground;)

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> No need to compute the deceleration time (intermediate result) if one
>> applies a little algebra (or calculus):
>
> Duh. Of course, that's the whole point of algebra. However, knowing
> the "full" solution makes it easier to understand, at least for some
> people. That's why I posted it.

Your original post was fine and I should state that my post was intended
merely to expand on yours. I have often computed many intermediate results
for one-off computations, just as you did in your previous post. I normally
"back-up" and work out a single closed-form equation when I find myself
needing to make several computations. I suspect many people with technical
training do something similar.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Dave" wrote in message
> One of my instructors STRONGLY suggested that I "do not try to save
> an aircraft that was trying to kill me"....

Hmmm.....
If the airplane doesn't get hurt, do the passengers?

The problem I have with Mr. Boatright's assumption that the field is a
better choice is that fields may not provide steady and gradual deceleration
after impact. For the same reason, it is better to land gear-up on the
runway than in the grass next to the runway. Landing on the road in Mr.
Boatright's scenario has its own problems, but for a pilot in unfamiliar
territory, the road shouldn't be ruled out automatically.

D.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dave" wrote in message
>> One of my instructors STRONGLY suggested that I "do not try to save
>> an aircraft that was trying to kill me"....
>
> Hmmm.....
> If the airplane doesn't get hurt, do the passengers?
>
> The problem I have with Mr. Boatright's assumption that the field is a
> better choice is that fields may not provide steady and gradual
> deceleration
> after impact. For the same reason, it is better to land gear-up on the
> runway than in the grass next to the runway. Landing on the road in Mr.
> Boatright's scenario has its own problems, but for a pilot in unfamiliar
> territory, the road shouldn't be ruled out automatically.

You've mischaracterized what I wrote. I clearly stated that you're better
off in a field if the road has vehicular traffic or if you don't know the
road to be free of wires. Those things lead to aircraft hitting the ground
out of control after the pilot stalls or collides with an obstacle. A field
is a better choice because it reduces the odds of an out of control impact.
Presumably, I should add "most of the time", because you appear to be
holding me to a standard of 100% certainty.

The idea is to work with probabilties, and you're probably better off in a
field than on a public road if survival is your primary consideration.

KB


>
> D.
>
>

[Jose[_1_]]

> Off the top of my head, don't the current Part 23 regulations require seats
> that can sustain over 20Gs?

Dunno. But I do remember a safety seminar I attended some time back
where I learned that aircraft seat belts only need to withstand about
two gs, and automotive seatbelts are required to withstand something
like seven. It is illegal to replace an aircraft seat belt with an
automotive one.

Go figure.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> :)No, of course not. I'm just pointing out that 9Gs vertical isn't all
>> that
>> bad either, as crashes go.
>
> But its a question of whats more likely to give way enough to allow you
> a 9G deceleration, the hard ground, or a bunch of softer stuff along
> the ground;)

Why is that a question? I don't disagree that one should land in as
controlled a manner as possible, with as little forward AND as little
vertical speed as possible, with vertical speed having the priority. I'm
just pointing out that 9Gs is pretty survivable no matter which direction
you're going.

And for the record, as long as the deceleration is given at 9Gs, it doesn't
matter whether you hit something hard or something soft. The impact is the
same.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Off the top of my head, don't the current Part 23 regulations require
>> seats that can sustain over 20Gs?
>
> Dunno. But I do remember a safety seminar I attended some time back where
> I learned that aircraft seat belts only need to withstand about two gs,
> and automotive seatbelts are required to withstand something like seven.

That number is so obviously wrong, I just had to look it up.

From 23.562(b)(2), the seatbelts (and other restraint components) need to
restrain the occupant when subjected to a peak deceleration of 26g for the
front seats, 21g for other seats (impact vector offset 10 degrees from the
longitudinal axis of the airplane).

I was unable to find a direct reference for the vertical deceleration for
the seats. 23.562(b)(1) requires the seat (and other restraint components)
to withstand a deceleration of 19g for the front seats, but this is with the
airplane pitched up 60 degrees from the impact vector (or in other words,
with the impact vector at a 30 degree angle from the vertical axis of the
airplane). Unless my bad math day continues, this means the actual vertical
strength of the seat needs to be something less than 19g. So I don't know
where I recalled the "over 20g" from, but if it's in Part 23, I can't find
it.

Some other interesting trivia I discovered:

Load limits for the seats, restraints, etc. are predicated on a maximum
passenger weight of 215 lbs. Certain dynamic tests are done with the FAA
standard 170 lb test dummy. Makes me wonder just how well a 300+ lb
passenger would do in my airplane if there ever was an accident with such a
person along (and I've carried at least two different people that I can
recall off the top of my head who are over 300 lbs).

Anyway, suffice to say, obviously airplane seat belts need to hold up to
quite a bit more than 2gs. But if you're a big person, or you carry big
people, your airplane may not be designed for you or your passengers.

Pete

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> I'm just pointing out that 9Gs is pretty survivable no matter
> which direction you're going.

Just being bumped from behind at a traffic light can easily produce 9
Gs. This level of acceleration is too low to produce direction
injury, but if it is sustained (as in aerobatic flight) it can produce
cardiovascular problems, most of which are temporary.

> And for the record, as long as the deceleration is given at 9Gs, it doesn't
> matter whether you hit something hard or something soft. The impact is the
> same.

For high accelerations, the product of acceleration and time at that
acceleration is important (or the integral of acceleration over time).
At 9 Gs, though, no direct physical injury is likely to occur no
matter how long it lasts.

I've seen an amusement park ride that "ejects" people upwards at 6 Gs
for about 500 ms. It doesn't produce any harmful effects.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote: <brevity snip>

> At 9 Gs, though, no direct physical injury is likely to occur no
> matter how long it lasts.

Eventually brain death at +9 or yer eyeballs popping at -9...
-----

- gpsman

[Danny Dot]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> EridanMan wrote:
>> I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
>> a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
>> to come to a full stop.
>>
>> Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.
>>
>> Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
>> landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
>> people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.
>
> I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
> happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
> company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.
>

If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best thing
financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane. If you
land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays nothing.

Danny Dot

[Capt.Doug]

>"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
> You've mischaracterized what I wrote. I clearly stated that you're better
> off in a field if the road has vehicular traffic or if you don't know the
> road to be free of wires. Those things lead to aircraft hitting the ground
> out of control after the pilot stalls or collides with an obstacle. A
field
> is a better choice because it reduces the odds of an out of control
impact.
> Presumably, I should add "most of the time", because you appear to be
> holding me to a standard of 100% certainty.

You've taken offense at my reply. Please don't let that detract from the
quality of the discussion.

Wires over the roadway are bad, and I agree that wires could cause a loss of
control, which is bad. However, just ask any cropduster, fields may have
wires running overhead also.

The danger of traffic on the roadway would lead to loss of control AFTER
ground contact (supposing the pilot hasn't frozen with panic). this loss of
control is no different than breaking a gear off and cartwheeling across the
field- been there, done that. Ripped the seats out of the rails.

> The idea is to work with probabilties, and you're probably better off in a
> field than on a public road if survival is your primary consideration.

To recharacterize what I wrote for you- assigning probabilities must include
more information than a transient pilot will likely have until the emergency
is actually happening.. My response to your post is that the field will not
neccessarily have a better survivability factor than the road. My intention
was to broaden the factors to be considered when envisioning this scenario.

D. (better at crashing than anyone I know)

[Kyle Boatright]

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> EridanMan wrote:
>>> I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
>>> a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
>>> to come to a full stop.
>>>
>>> Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.
>>>
>>> Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
>>> landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
>>> people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.
>>
>> I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
>> happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
>> company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.
>>
>
> If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best
> thing financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane. If
> you land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays nothing.
>
> Danny Dot

I'd prefer to pay to fix an engine than to have someone get hurt or killed
in an effort to total the airplane.

KB

[Kyle Boatright]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
>> You've mischaracterized what I wrote. I clearly stated that you're better
>> off in a field if the road has vehicular traffic or if you don't know the
>> road to be free of wires. Those things lead to aircraft hitting the
>> ground
>> out of control after the pilot stalls or collides with an obstacle. A
> field
>> is a better choice because it reduces the odds of an out of control
> impact.
>> Presumably, I should add "most of the time", because you appear to be
>> holding me to a standard of 100% certainty.
>
> You've taken offense at my reply. Please don't let that detract from the
> quality of the discussion.
>
> Wires over the roadway are bad, and I agree that wires could cause a loss
> of
> control, which is bad. However, just ask any cropduster, fields may have
> wires running overhead also.
>
> The danger of traffic on the roadway would lead to loss of control AFTER
> ground contact (supposing the pilot hasn't frozen with panic). this loss
> of
> control is no different than breaking a gear off and cartwheeling across
> the
> field- been there, done that. Ripped the seats out of the rails.

The way I see it, vehicular traffic (and particularly the variability of
traffic - what looked like a big space suddenly closes or traffic gets to
your chosen landing site at just the wrong moment) is a variable that has a
good chance of forcing the pilot to maneuver at the last minute. That's a
bad thing, and often leads to someone stalling and crashing from 50' (my
arbitrary loss of control altitude), which is usually fatal. As opposed to
a controlled touch down in a field, which is usually survivable.


>
>> The idea is to work with probabilties, and you're probably better off in
>> a
>> field than on a public road if survival is your primary consideration.
>
> To recharacterize what I wrote for you- assigning probabilities must
> include
> more information than a transient pilot will likely have until the
> emergency
> is actually happening.. My response to your post is that the field will
> not
> neccessarily have a better survivability factor than the road. My
> intention
> was to broaden the factors to be considered when envisioning this
> scenario.
>
> D. (better at crashing than anyone I know)
>
>

[Danny Dot]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..

snip

>> If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best
>> thing financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane.
>> If you land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays
>> nothing.
>>
>> Danny Dot
>
> I'd prefer to pay to fix an engine than to have someone get hurt or killed
> in an effort to total the airplane.
>

I had to make this decision a few year ago. I chose the runway and paid for
an expense overhaul.

[[email protected]]

> >> If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best
> >> thing financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane.
> >> If you land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays
> >> nothing.

Having just had an engine failure that forced an emergency off-field
landing, I can't believe that when suddenly faced with no power, anyone
would make a conscious effort to land off field **if** a RUNWAY is
accessible, just to come out better financially! We had no accessible
runway, but if we did, we sure as hell would have used it ... we were
thinking about saving our butts, period. In those few precious seconds,
insurance never entered our minds.

[[email protected]]

My response to your post is that the field will
> > not
> > neccessarily have a better survivability factor than the road. My
> > intention
> > was to broaden the factors to be considered when envisioning this
> > scenario.

As I recall, most forced landings do allow the occupants to
survive. The fatalities usually come as a result of the post-crash fire
where fuel was involved, or from exposure to the elements while waiting
for rescue.
So we teach our students that immediately after a forced
landing you get yourself and your pax out of the airplane and get away
from it. Fires sometimes break out some time after the airplane is
damaged. There should be a chance later on to retrieve emergency
supplies (they'd better be aboard) if the thing doesn't burn.
And, being in Canada, we always take survival kits and proper
clothing seriously. We are continually amazed at the people who will
jump into their airplanes in the dead of winter with nothing more than
a light jacket and sneakers and assume that all will be OK. If they had
to force-land and had to walk (assuming no broken legs) one mile to a
farmhouse, say, at -20°C in a 20-knot wind, they would die. Some of
these same folks will fly thorough the Rockies (no matter what time of
year) without anything more than what they wear to work. And some of
them disappear for a day or two, only to be found dead of hypothermia.
I really wouldn't want to have to ditch in water at any time
of year. Hypothermia kills in the summer, too. The survival stuff goes
down with the airplane.
All this to say that we too often assume that if we can land
the airplane under control, we'll survive. We need to be able to do
that AND live to see another Christmas.

Dan

[Peter Duniho]

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
> If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best
> thing financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane. If
> you land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays nothing.

If you land on the runway without damage, what would there be for the
insurance company to pay?

I don't know about you, but my insurance policy doesn't distinguish between
accidents that occur off-airport and on-airport (well, other than a
different deductible depending on whether the airplane is in-motion and/or
moored). Even if damage *did* occur, the question of landing on a runway
versus not is irrelevant. It would be pretty foolish for a person to buy an
insurance policy that encourages a less-safe decision.

But your comment about landing on a runway *without* damage is just silly.
Of *course* the insurance company would pay nothing if there was no damage.
I have no damage every time I go flying (so far :) ), and every single time,
my insurance company refuses to pay. Oddly enough, I don't have any problem
with this.

Pete

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>
> If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best
> thing financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane. If
> you land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays nothing.
>
> Danny Dot

You are advocating insurance fraud? I guess we now know why you use a
psuedo-name.

You might want to look into the phrase "prudent uninsured". You might even
find it in your policy.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[neo]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> A Lancair was involved in a fatal accident near Dalton, GA yesterday. It
> crashed in the median of a divided 4 lane highway. The airplane had engine
> problems and had time to radio distress calls. Depending on the news source,
> it appears that there might have been as much as 10 to 20 minutes between
> the first distress call and the crash. One story indicated that the
> aircraft crashed almost 10 minutes after emergency crews had been notified
> of a plane in distress.
>
> Apparently the pilot was trying to reach the Dalton airport, which was about
> 3 miles from the crash scene. The airplane didn't make the airport and the
> pilot was almost certainly trying to land on the road. Having seen pictures
> of the aftermath, it appears that the aircraft was not under control when it
> hit the ground. Perhaps the pilot stalled trying to avoid landing in traffic
> (this is a busy road), clipped a utility wire, or lost control trying to
> avoid wires.
>
> Plane crashes in north Georgia, kills 1 - Examiner.com
>
> http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/breaking/entries/2006/11/06/109692.html
> (may require registration)
>
> Anyway, the point that this accident brings home is that unless you have the
> opportunity to land on a road that is free of vehicular traffic and which
> you know to be free of utility wires, land the airplane in a field if you
> have the chance. Even more important is that you need to fly the airplane
> all the way to the ground and touch down as slowly as possible. Losing
> control at 50' almost guarantees a bad outcome.
>
> I fly over the crash area all the time and can tell you that there is a fair
> amount of open land nearby. That pasture (or whatever) may not look as
> airplane friendly as a paved road, but for a deadstick pilot a road is like
> a sucker hole for a VFR pilot. It can be a killer when something that looked
> good from afar goes to you-know-what when you get a look at it up close and
> personal.

My advice to all you pilots is that try to land your plane in crop
field in emergency.

It is another thing that I have seen planes only in movies and TV.

[EridanMan]

FWIW, I sat down and had a discussion with a couple old-timers and
instructors about this very subject at my club the other night.

They're point of view, which is so painfully simple I can't believe I
didn't see it myself...

"If the Engine fails, just Fly Vg".

Basically, they're whole point was the best way you make sure that you
never have to make the 'choice' to try to push a glide to the field is
simply to take that out of consideration in engine out situations. Fly
Vg from the moment the engine cuts to the moment you begin your
round-out... land wherever that puts you.

The only kink in the armor is - if you're lined up on final for a
runway and you're greater than 250 + your 360 sink altitude, do a 360.
If below that mark, use the flaps, or slip if necessary to bleed off
energy and not overshoot the runway, but whatever you do, Do not
deviate from Vg.

Similarly, if you're low... fly Vg. Keep Vg up as long as you can
(flaps retracted, of course). If you hit 10 feet above the ground and
you're not at the runway, go ahead and flare, you're not going to make
it...

This is probably a 'duh' to anyone on here;) but I figured it was
worth mentioning anyways.



On Nov 7, 5:12 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> A Lancair was involved in a fatal accident near Dalton, GA yesterday. It
> crashed in the median of a divided 4 lane highway. The airplane had engine
> problems and had time to radio distress calls. Depending on the news source,
> it appears that there might have been as much as 10 to 20 minutes between
> the first distress call and the crash. One story indicated that the
> aircraft crashed almost 10 minutes after emergency crews had been notified
> of a plane in distress.
>
> Apparently the pilot was trying to reach the Dalton airport, which was about
> 3 miles from the crash scene. The airplane didn't make the airport and the
> pilot was almost certainly trying to land on the road. Having seen pictures
> of the aftermath, it appears that the aircraft was not under control when it
> hit the ground. Perhaps the pilot stalled trying to avoid landing in traffic
> (this is a busy road), clipped a utility wire, or lost control trying to
> avoid wires.
>
> Plane crashes in north Georgia, kills 1 - Examiner.com
>
> http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/breaking/entries/20...
> (may require registration)
>
> Anyway, the point that this accident brings home is that unless you have the
> opportunity to land on a road that is free of vehicular traffic and which
> you know to be free of utility wires, land the airplane in a field if you
> have the chance. Even more important is that you need to fly the airplane
> all the way to the ground and touch down as slowly as possible. Losing
> control at 50' almost guarantees a bad outcome.
>
> I fly over the crash area all the time and can tell you that there is a fair
> amount of open land nearby. That pasture (or whatever) may not look as
> airplane friendly as a paved road, but for a deadstick pilot a road is like
> a sucker hole for a VFR pilot. It can be a killer when something that looked
> good from afar goes to you-know-what when you get a look at it up close and
> personal.
>
> KB

[Jose[_1_]]

> Fly Vg from the moment the engine
> cuts to the moment you begin your
> round-out... land wherever that puts you.

You can do better if you consider the wind. Fly faster than Vg into the
wind, slower than Vg with the wind, and you will increase your range
(and likelihood of reaching something hospitable).

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[EridanMan]

Yeah, I understand that... I'm just saying fundamentally- keep the
aircraft in best glide speed (dependent on configuration) from the
moment the engine cuts until the moment you flare, and you won't worry
about the 'do I push this glide to make the runway' trap.

On Nov 15, 12:44 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > Fly Vg from the moment the engine
> > cuts to the moment you begin your
> > round-out... land wherever that puts you.You can do better if you consider the wind. Fly faster than Vg into the
> wind, slower than Vg with the wind, and you will increase your range
> (and likelihood of reaching something hospitable).
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.